Anonymous posting is only appropriate when you are revealing sensitive employment related information about a firm, job, etc. You may anonymously respond on topic to these threads. Unacceptable uses include: harassing another user, joking around, testing the feature, or other things that are more appropriate in the lounge.

Is there a website that shows historical offer rates? I can only find last summer's rates on NALP (which are not very useful because most are perfect or at least 95%+). People talk about firms that "historically give 100% offers" but I'm not sure which ones they are.

flcath wrote:People get no-offered for fit reasons? Like, non-total-assholes? Their opportunity to screen for fit should be the screeners and CBs.

flcath wrote:Tyty. My place is really big on it in the hiring process, and I just am not as charming and engaging and likable IRL as I was in the interview process.

I just worry b/c almost everyone here (and everyone young) is either very charismatic or very attractive. Not living up to that standard doesn't strike me as a 'fair' reason to no-offer, tho.

Is it not ironic that you think "fit" should be screened out at the interview stage, but then pretty much admit that you yourself are a different person in real life than in the interview process? If you gave the impression that you were very charismatic but you are really not, I fail to see how that is an "unfair" reason to no-offer. Not saying I think you will or should get no- offered, but at the end of the day fit is very important.

"Ironic?" No, I don't think it's ironic, and I stand by my statement.

By having you work as an SA at their firm, they are effectively taking away your opportunity to work elsewhere, where you might have been a better "fit"--an evaluation, btw, that the firms are in a far better position to make than you, the applicant, are. Poor performance (a) is something that, unlike fit, the firm *needs* to get rid of, and (b) would get you bounced from any firm you could have chosen. If your personality is so bad that point (a) no longer holds--i.e., you're an asshole--then that's different.

flcath wrote:People get no-offered for fit reasons? Like, non-total-assholes? Their opportunity to screen for fit should be the screeners and CBs.

flcath wrote:Tyty. My place is really big on it in the hiring process, and I just am not as charming and engaging and likable IRL as I was in the interview process.

I just worry b/c almost everyone here (and everyone young) is either very charismatic or very attractive. Not living up to that standard doesn't strike me as a 'fair' reason to no-offer, tho.

Is it not ironic that you think "fit" should be screened out at the interview stage, but then pretty much admit that you yourself are a different person in real life than in the interview process? If you gave the impression that you were very charismatic but you are really not, I fail to see how that is an "unfair" reason to no-offer. Not saying I think you will or should get no- offered, but at the end of the day fit is very important.

"Ironic?" No, I don't think it's ironic, and I stand by my statement.

By having you work as an SA at their firm, they are effectively taking away your opportunity to work elsewhere, where you might have been a better "fit"--an evaluation, btw, that the firms are in a far better position to make than you, the applicant, are. Poor performance (a) is something that, unlike fit, the firm *needs* to get rid of, and (b) would get you bounced from any firm you could have chosen. If your personality is so bad that point (a) no longer holds--i.e., you're an asshole--then that's different.

You're at the mercy of the firm you work for... there's nothing to be done about "unfair" decisions. Generally, though, I don't think people get no offered for fit unless they do something pretty egregious. A firm no-offering someone simply because they were awkward would be pretty extreme.

flcath wrote:By having you work as an SA at their firm, they are effectively taking away your opportunity to work elsewhere, where you might have been a better "fit"

Just like holding yourself out as being different in interviews than you are in real life effectively takes away the firm's opportunity to hire someone who is a better "fit" in their office. Sure a firm might be in a better position to determine fit, but how can they do so if an applicant is faking their personality. Firms have every right to focus on "fit" (lawyers spend a lot of hours together), and if someone doesn't hold up their end of the bargain (because they didn't allow the firm to make the correct fit assessment at the interview stage), what is the firm supposed to do?

flcath wrote:By having you work as an SA at their firm, they are effectively taking away your opportunity to work elsewhere, where you might have been a better "fit"

Just like holding yourself out as being different in interviews than you are in real life effectively takes away the firm's opportunity to hire someone who is a better "fit" in their office. Sure a firm might be in a better position to determine fit, but how can they do so if an applicant is faking their personality. Firms have every right to focus on "fit" (lawyers spend a lot of hours together), and if someone doesn't hold up their end of the bargain (because they didn't allow the firm to make the correct fit assessment at the interview stage), what is the firm supposed to do?

Is this a serious reply? You act the same way in interviews as you do on a regular basis? No one doubts that attractiveness is part of this metric; what if a chick were no-offered for gaining 10 lbs?

And of course firms have the "right" to no-offer arbitrarily, in the same way that applicants/SAs have the "right" to lie on our resumes/transcripts, send confidential material to the other side, and engage in other misleading/vindictive behavior. In both cases, if you're willing to deal with the consequences (recruiting penalties / professional and contractual sanctions), then you can do whatever you want.

I *think* most people expect both sides to abide by a set of unwritten rules that take into account the effect your actions will have on the other side.

flcath wrote:By having you work as an SA at their firm, they are effectively taking away your opportunity to work elsewhere, where you might have been a better "fit"

Just like holding yourself out as being different in interviews than you are in real life effectively takes away the firm's opportunity to hire someone who is a better "fit" in their office. Sure a firm might be in a better position to determine fit, but how can they do so if an applicant is faking their personality. Firms have every right to focus on "fit" (lawyers spend a lot of hours together), and if someone doesn't hold up their end of the bargain (because they didn't allow the firm to make the correct fit assessment at the interview stage), what is the firm supposed to do?

Is this a serious reply? You act the same way in interviews as you do on a regular basis? No one doubts that attractiveness is part of this metric; what if a chick were no-offered for gaining 10 lbs?

And of course firms have the "right" to no-offer arbitrarily, in the same way that applicants/SAs have the "right" to lie on our resumes/transcripts, send confidential material to the other side, and engage in other misleading/vindictive behavior. In both cases, if you're willing to deal with the consequences (recruiting penalties / professional and contractual sanctions), then you can do whatever you want.

I *think* most people expect both sides to abide by a set of unwritten rules that take into account the effect your actions will have on the other side.

Anonymous User wrote:I think the point is that no- offering for fit is not arbitrary.

It's a solid reason to not hire post-CB (or screener), but not to no-offer.

Same thing with grades. They had an opportunity to judge you for grades before you came in; they shouldn't decide on the back end that your post-1L GPA wasn't good enough. The difference, obviously, is that grades can be determined with 100% accuracy on the front end, while there's some imprecision in determining fit. That's cause for improving your screener/CB process, not no-offering SAs.

I guess it's moot anyway. It's up to each firm to do whatever it wants to do, just like its up to each individual to decide whether to forge transcripts/resumes or fuck over a firm after getting no-offered or fired.

Anonymous User wrote:I think the point is that no- offering for fit is not arbitrary.

It's a solid reason to not hire post-CB (or screener), but not to no-offer.

Same thing with grades. They had an opportunity to judge you for grades before you came in; they shouldn't decide on the back end that your post-1L GPA wasn't good enough. The difference, obviously, is that grades can be determined with 100% accuracy on the front end, while there's some imprecision in determining fit. That's cause for improving your screener/CB process, not no-offering SAs.

I guess it's moot anyway. It's up to each firm to do whatever it wants to do, just like its up to each individual to decide whether to forge transcripts/resumes or fuck over a firm after getting no-offered or fired.

Law firms don't owe you shit, I suggest you curtail your entitled attitude.

Anonymous User wrote:I think the point is that no- offering for fit is not arbitrary.

It's a solid reason to not hire post-CB (or screener), but not to no-offer.

Same thing with grades. They had an opportunity to judge you for grades before you came in; they shouldn't decide on the back end that your post-1L GPA wasn't good enough. The difference, obviously, is that grades can be determined with 100% accuracy on the front end, while there's some imprecision in determining fit. That's cause for improving your screener/CB process, not no-offering SAs.

I guess it's moot anyway. It's up to each firm to do whatever it wants to do, just like its up to each individual to decide whether to forge transcripts/resumes or fuck over a firm after getting no-offered or fired.

Law firms don't owe you shit, I suggest you curtail your entitled attitude.

Anonymous User wrote:People talk about firms that "historically give 100% offers" but I'm not sure which ones they are.

The ones that deliberately make their summers feel so proud to be part of such a prestigious firm, and so confident that they will absolutely get an offer unless they are truly worthless, that those who get screwed over at the end of the summer are too ashamed to tell anyone they were no-offered.

Why do people keep insinuating/stating that a firm has "screwed you over" if they no offer you for cause (poor fit/poor performance relative to firm standards and others in your class)?

You're being screwed over if a firm that knew it couldn't or wouldnt hire you or would have more summers than they could/would hire, brought you on as a summer associate without revealing this information to you after you asked.

Aqualibrium wrote:Why do people keep insinuating/stating that a firm has "screwed you over" if they no offer you for cause (poor fit/poor performance relative to firm standards and others in your class)?

You're being screwed over if a firm that knew it couldn't or wouldnt hire you or would have more summers than they could/would hire, brought you on as a summer associate without revealing this information to you after you asked.

No, either standard works just fine, and it's a matter of opinion what you want to define as being "screwed over." Don't act like there are uniform standards for this.

FWIW, it seems like a subjective judgment the weighs the harm the no-offer does to the SA (pretty high) against the (harder-to-define) negative impact that hiring the SA would have on the firm.

Aqualibrium wrote:Why do people keep insinuating/stating that a firm has "screwed you over" if they no offer you for cause (poor fit/poor performance relative to firm standards and others in your class)?

You're being screwed over if a firm that knew it couldn't or wouldnt hire you or would have more summers than they could/would hire, brought you on as a summer associate without revealing this information to you after you asked.

No, either standard works just fine, and it's a matter of opinion what you want to define as being "screwed over." Don't act like there are uniform standards for this.

FWIW, it seems like a subjective judgment the weighs the harm the no-offer does to the SA (pretty high) against the (harder-to-define) negative impact that hiring the SA would have on the firm.

I was totally screwed over when Barack Obama did not choose me for his running mate. By not selecting me, I was completely deprived of my ability to be vice president. I was entitled to that shit, and my opinion is just as valid as anyone else's.

In any case, this thread probably isn't a great place to discuss the broad ethical implications of no-offering. OP, I think you've got a lot of sound advice here. If there's anyone you connected with at the old firm, especially a senior associate or partner, your best bet may be to milk that connection for leads to paid work.

mrloblaw wrote:I was totally screwed over when Barack Obama did not choose me for his running mate. By not selecting me, I was completely deprived of my ability to be vice president. I was entitled to that shit, and my opinion is just as valid as anyone else's.

Interesting analogy. What are your thoughts on the things applicants/SAs "owe" to the firm?

If you're stance is "we don't owe them shit," then that's consistent. But TLS has loads of threads where people talk about how you shouldn't renege once you've accepted an offer, or (on the more extreme end) fake resumes/transcripts, engage in vindictive behavior, et cetera.

mrloblaw wrote:In any case, this thread probably isn't a great place to discuss the broad ethical implications of no-offering.

(1) I like how you talk about the issue, and then say this isn't the place for it.(2) So I get that the relevance seems tangential, but here's the situation I'm envisioning: you get a no-offer, and the firm's policy is to neither confirm nor deny offers to anyone who calls. Why shouldn't you represent (or at least strongly imply) that you got an offer when you're applying for new jobs?

Anonymous User wrote:I think the point is that no- offering for fit is not arbitrary.

It's a solid reason to not hire post-CB (or screener), but not to no-offer.

Same thing with grades. They had an opportunity to judge you for grades before you came in; they shouldn't decide on the back end that your post-1L GPA wasn't good enough. The difference, obviously, is that grades can be determined with 100% accuracy on the front end, while there's some imprecision in determining fit. That's cause for improving your screener/CB process, not no-offering SAs.

I guess it's moot anyway. It's up to each firm to do whatever it wants to do, just like its up to each individual to decide whether to forge transcripts/resumes or fuck over a firm after getting no-offered or fired.

Law firms don't owe you shit, I suggest you curtail your entitled attitude.

Hmmm... (edited)... See page 5 post.

Last edited by Lawquacious on Sat Aug 11, 2012 2:43 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Anonymous User wrote:I think the point is that no- offering for fit is not arbitrary.

It's a solid reason to not hire post-CB (or screener), but not to no-offer.

Same thing with grades. They had an opportunity to judge you for grades before you came in; they shouldn't decide on the back end that your post-1L GPA wasn't good enough. The difference, obviously, is that grades can be determined with 100% accuracy on the front end, while there's some imprecision in determining fit. That's cause for improving your screener/CB process, not no-offering SAs.

I guess it's moot anyway. It's up to each firm to do whatever it wants to do, just like its up to each individual to decide whether to forge transcripts/resumes or fuck over a firm after getting no-offered or fired.

Law firms don't owe you shit, I suggest you curtail your entitled attitude.

Fuck you dude. Law firms may not owe him shit, but shame on you for being a dick to someone whose position you could easily be in, and where you would probably be at least as much of a bitch about it. Fuck you.

I haven't been no-offered (nor do I have any objective reason to worry, these threads just generate understandable paranoia), and I'm assuming he wasn't being a dick to the OP. So this was pretty typical (bitchy) internet rhetoric in response to some of my bizarre assertions about firms deserving to get dicked over by no-offered associates. Nbd.

As someone who was no-offered, firms don't owe you anything. They do not make ANY promise to offer you at the end of summer and their "historical" offer rates have nothing to do with whether YOU are getting an offer. You got 10 weeks to prove yourself, didn't mesh well with the office, and now you want them to pay you 6 figures although you didn't fit in so they can deal with someone who obviously doesn't mesh well with the office on a daily basis? Funny. Again, I am a summer who was no offered and although it was a pretty big blow, I am on the law firms side on this one and think you're delusional if you think that A.) A summer is entitled to an offer, B.) Fit is not a valid reason to no offer or C.) The law firm has any duty to you past the summer they hired you for.

Anonymous User wrote:OP I feel for you because I'm in the same boat. I was no offered today, firm cited work fit and some inconsistent work product at the beginning. I feel fucking awful.

Senior partner offered to serve as a reference, but I honestly have no idea what to do from here. I really loved the firm's culture and thought I fit in great...

Southern NALP firm in a small market is as specific as I'm getting.

Sorry to hear this. Will you provide market or even state? Also, what happened with the rest of your summer class?

And there is hope. There are a few firms/agencies coming to my (southern) school's 3L OCI to recruit.

I'll say Florida; any more specific and it's super obvious. At least one other person was no offered -- I believe for the same reason -- and we had a small class.

I applied to a few choice clerkships, but I'm going sending out apps to another 10 or so (potentially more) and start spamming firms up and down the Atlantic. My stats are decent (top 10% at a good non-T14) so I hope somebody will be interested.

Just the thought about going through this process again makes me feel sick. I barely had the energy to go for a 10 minute jog yesterday.

Anonymous User wrote:This is such an idiotic thread.

As someone who was no-offered, firms don't owe you anything. They do not make ANY promise to offer you at the end of summer and their "historical" offer rates have nothing to do with whether YOU are getting an offer. You got 10 weeks to prove yourself, didn't mesh well with the office, and now you want them to pay you 6 figures although you didn't fit in so they can deal with someone who obviously doesn't mesh well with the office on a daily basis? Funny. Again, I am a summer who was no offered and although it was a pretty big blow, I am on the law firms side on this one and think you're delusional if you think that A.) A summer is entitled to an offer, B.) Fit is not a valid reason to no offer or C.) The law firm has any duty to you past the summer they hired you for.

Nobody is saying they do. It doesn't change the fact that it sucks. There's nothing wrong with seeking empathy from people in similar situations.